Malachi151

I've been looking at a lot of the information around James lately, as well as Q and the Gospel of Thomas, and it struck me. What if basically Q, or at least Q1, and the saying of the Gospel of Thomas are all teachings of James, and this is a part of the whole confusion about James being the brother of Jesus, etc.

Basically, what if James was the source of Q and Thomas, and Q and Thomas originate from a Jamsian sect.

What we have is James with his own wisdom teachings, etc., and we have Paul with his "revealed Christ", which becomes mixed together in later tradition.

I couldn't say exactly what James taught, etc., if James was apocalyptic or not, if James taught about Jesus Christ or not, etc., but basically, Q and Thomas would represent Jamesian wisdom teachings, that later became attributed to Jesus. This would be something that happened organically, without any specific intention to mix things up or misrepresent anything.

Ted Hoffman

What pieces of evidence make you consider this as a possibility?

Toto

James is a rather shadowy figure, but the most common interpretation is that he was not a wisdom teacher. He was more of a strict Jewish follower of the law.

Ben C Smith

OTOH, if the epistle of James is genuine and the James in question was James the just, then James did indeed do some wisdom teaching. And, if that epistle is spurious and the James in question was James the just, then it just goes to show that somebody thought he did some wisdom teaching, or that wisdom teaching was appropriate for him.

I myself am a bit leery of categorizations of this kind. It is commonly thought, for example, that wisdom is one thing and apocalyptic quite another, yet we have the book of Daniel, who was supposed to be wise precisely because he both had and could interpret apocalyptic dreams and visions.

Likewise, it is possible to consider strict adherence to the law the better part of wisdom.

Ben.

Malachi151

Hunches

The Gospel of Thomas is a sayings Gospel, and it names James as "the man" after Jesus. Presumably, then this comes from a Jamesean sect. GThomas is also pretty Jewish in nature.

Q, especially Q1, is sayings, and also Jewish in nature.

Where did these sayings come from? Perhaps from Jesus.

If Jesus did not exist, then where would they have come from?

Many options, but presumably from some community that was teaching about Jesus.

Who was teaching about Jesus?

James, John, and Peter, as well as Paul.

Paul is out, of course.

I don't see much at all about this Peter fellow in the early sources, except in the writings of Paul, and I can't really say much about him.

This James fellow has a lot written about him, but its vague and "shadowy", as Toto says. He was certianly highly esteemed. Why? He wasn't Jesus' brother, that's fore sure, as the other early sources, such as Acts show.

He was someone with influence, who was considered a pillar of the Christianity community at the time of Paul, whom Paul apparently didn't get along with because he was "too Jewish".

If this James fellow were a Jewish apocalyptic teacher, who viewed Jesus as a symbolic or future messiah figure that could account for perhaps the origins of the cult.

If this James fellow were an oratory preacher, who talked about a coming messiah and who also had his own wisdom teachings, perhaps his followers would have written some of these sayings down at a later time, and depending on how much later, perhaps they would have even attributed James' teachings to the "mythical" messiah that James preached about.

So Paul came along, and after he had opposed these people for some time, he converts and goes off on his whole own tangent with "the Gentiles" talking about this coming messiah, and Paul then further develops the universality of the messiah and Paul establishes even more symbolism, etc.

The Jamsean (Judean) group, continues to be primarily Jewish oriented, and eventually James dies and his teachings about Jesus, as well as his own wisdom sayings, get passed on, perhaps orally perhaps written, we don't know, and then we have the war between Judea and Rome and after this "Mark", who is of a Pauline sect, writes an allegorical fiction about how the Judean Jews brought destruction on themselves, staring the figure, "Jesus Christ".

Mark was of a Pauline sect, and viewed the other people, such as Peter and James and John, etc., as fools, but then Mark's story is picked up on by someone from the Jamesean sect, "Matthew", and "Matthew" then adds in the Jamsean material, which by this point is all mixed up and the sayings of James are attributed to "Jesus".

This is sort of a vague sketch, but sort of the train of thought.

At this point James, perhaps the spawner of the whole "Jesus Christ" cult in the first place, has been overshadowed by his own creation, much like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his Sherlock Holmes. James becomes relegated to the "brother" of the teaching aid that he himself created.

Right but, as Ben said, what is this really based on...

Doug Shaver

I don't have a good counterargument right at hand, but I suspect it's going to take quite a few ad hoc assumptions to work it into a complete account of Christianity's origins.

Malachi151

Of course. It is speculation, but I figured I would throw it out there. I doubt there is any way to prove it, but it seems possible, and even probable to me.